The only thing I would add is that our focus on change needs to be at the base level-- it's far easier to move a mountain by pushing at its base than by poking at the top, but it does take a lot more effort. The change needs to start within the families. When parents are more involved with their children and excited about their education, that's a huge step toward motivating and exciting the kids themselves. If parents are more involved in the teaching process (and I don't mean by telling the teacher they're a failure because their child didn't perform well enough), teachers have more feedback to be able to help the children well. Yes, teachers need to improve too, and I think that improvement should include continued education on their own part, but the best place to start is in the family.
If any adherents can PROVE their imaginary friend is real, I'll recant
Proofs exist, and many people could provide the proofs. It wouldn't do any good, however, because you'd just wave it off.
The problem isn't with the proof, the problem is with the AXIOMS. Very good and convincing proofs of the existence of God are there, if you take a particular set of axioms as the basis for your outlook. That's the faith part.
It's a real problem in our world today that people take math and science as gospel. Everyone seems to forget that all of math and science are based on axioms, things that we assume must be correct because there's no way to prove it. We have to make those assumptions, though, to do anything at all. You might say "well, so far nothing has shown those assumptions to be wrong, so we must be right!", but that's only good to a point. Newton's law of gravity is correct, but only if you assume a Euclidean geometry. Is that correct? Well... not exactly... but that doesn't make Newton's laws worthless; many models we run on today rely on those principles which aren't, technically, true.
So I'm sorry, but I decline to offer my proofs. If you'd like to talk axioms, on the other hand, that might be a more interesting (and fruitful) conversation.
Seriously-- there's no reason we shouldn't be teaching Algebra from the *very beginning*. I mean, come on.. what's the difference between 1 + _ = 2 and 1 + x = 2? You're figuring out the exact same thing!! The only reason I can think that we can't introduce Algebra from the start is that it scares the heck out of the teachers.
I finally got up the courage to try taking a look at the actual bill; fortunately it's not very long, and isn't too dense, but may leave a few loopholes that could be of concern. A few thoughts:
In Sec. 2(b)(1): `(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes-- `(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and `(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.
Sounds like individuals are at least allowed to own/use security systems/software for protection and testing of their own network, so no reduction to rights in that regard.
In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)-- `(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;
Any information shared by an entity must be treated in accordance to the desires of that entity; so a lot of the privacy issues fall to the sharing entity itself for protection. Possible loop-hole here: what happens if information is not well-protected by a sharing agency? Does this give the government open reign on information if it's not explicitly forbidden them? Or worse, the final part of this section states:
In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)-- `(D) shall be exempt from disclosure under a State, local, or tribal law or regulation that requires public disclosure of information by a public or quasi-public entity.
If a business chooses to share personal information about customers, there is no way for customers to find out or be aware it is happening. I'm sure there are good reasons to put an exemption like this in the bill, but the lack of explicit protection to the individual customers and citizens is glaring.
As for the limits on what can be done with the information: Sec 2(c): `(2) AFFIRMATIVE SEARCH RESTRICTION- The Federal Government may not affirmatively search cyber threat information shared with the Federal Government under subsection (b) for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in paragraph (1)(B).
I'm not familiar with the legal-speak here; what is meant by "affirmatively" searching?
There are some good things I found too. The remainder of Sec 2 is a good start, but it's hard to know if it is sufficient protection for individual rights and privacy or not. Overall, I'm really not sure how I feel about this bill. I don't see anything obvious that tells me its a bad idea, but I don't fully understand all of the nuances of what could happen with it. It seems any government that wants to exploit its citizens will do so, regardless of the legal code, so I'm not sure how this bill would make that kind of abuse any more likely.
I'm not seeing how that works... on the site, they say the random words come from a list or 7,776 words. Any attacker will have access to that list.. if you do a 5 word password, that's a total of 7776**5 possible passwords, which is fewer than a 10 character password using lower & upper case, numbers, and punctuation. That's not more secure, and I'm not sure 5 randomly chosen words is always going to be any easier to remember.
One advantage is that the raw supplies are inherently able to withstand the flight up there, so no investment has to be made into over-engineering the parts to survive being shaken to pieces by a rocket.
The question I had is how the polymers they're using behave in vacuum; they'll almost certainly outgas like crazy. How strong/durable do the parts remain after a given amount of time in space? What about UV light? I'd love to see them do some materials testing before sending an expensive printer up only to find out the parts don't last long enough to be useful.
This assumes that we have no control over where the heat goes. If, on the other hand, we can direct the heat into something else, then the ambient temperature won't get nearly so high. That is, after all, why you have a heat sink on your CPU.
Still, I agree with being a bit skeptical. I think I read somewhere that he claims to use one of these as a glorified space heater. I'd bet a room full of these would get pretty warm in that case... I'd be interested to know where all that energy is going.
You'd also need fuel for course correction. Gas jets do great for orbital maneuvering, but won't help you stick a landing on a relatively small target like a launchpad.
The cost of a payload is significantly different from the value of a payload.
A lot of that cost goes into paying for the engineering involved. If the space pirate runs up and snags a GPS satellite, what do you honestly think they could get on the market for it?
Wow-- this reminds me of a great Laruel and Hardy sketch where Laurel throws half of his nails away because the head is on the wrong side.
Oh, I know! They're not accepting the upside down ones because they must have been sent in from Australia!
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Spot-On.
The only thing I would add is that our focus on change needs to be at the base level-- it's far easier to move a mountain by pushing at its base than by poking at the top, but it does take a lot more effort. The change needs to start within the families. When parents are more involved with their children and excited about their education, that's a huge step toward motivating and exciting the kids themselves. If parents are more involved in the teaching process (and I don't mean by telling the teacher they're a failure because their child didn't perform well enough), teachers have more feedback to be able to help the children well. Yes, teachers need to improve too, and I think that improvement should include continued education on their own part, but the best place to start is in the family.
If any adherents can PROVE their imaginary friend is real, I'll recant
Proofs exist, and many people could provide the proofs. It wouldn't do any good, however, because you'd just wave it off.
The problem isn't with the proof, the problem is with the AXIOMS. Very good and convincing proofs of the existence of God are there, if you take a particular set of axioms as the basis for your outlook. That's the faith part.
It's a real problem in our world today that people take math and science as gospel. Everyone seems to forget that all of math and science are based on axioms, things that we assume must be correct because there's no way to prove it. We have to make those assumptions, though, to do anything at all. You might say "well, so far nothing has shown those assumptions to be wrong, so we must be right!", but that's only good to a point. Newton's law of gravity is correct, but only if you assume a Euclidean geometry. Is that correct? Well... not exactly... but that doesn't make Newton's laws worthless; many models we run on today rely on those principles which aren't, technically, true.
So I'm sorry, but I decline to offer my proofs. If you'd like to talk axioms, on the other hand, that might be a more interesting (and fruitful) conversation.
Seriously-- there's no reason we shouldn't be teaching Algebra from the *very beginning*. I mean, come on.. what's the difference between 1 + _ = 2 and 1 + x = 2? You're figuring out the exact same thing!! The only reason I can think that we can't introduce Algebra from the start is that it scares the heck out of the teachers.
I finally got up the courage to try taking a look at the actual bill; fortunately it's not very long, and isn't too dense, but may leave a few loopholes that could be of concern. A few thoughts:
In Sec. 2(b)(1):
`(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes--
`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and
`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.
Sounds like individuals are at least allowed to own/use security systems/software for protection and testing of their own network, so no reduction to rights in that regard.
In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--
`(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;
Any information shared by an entity must be treated in accordance to the desires of that entity; so a lot of the privacy issues fall to the sharing entity itself for protection. Possible loop-hole here: what happens if information is not well-protected by a sharing agency? Does this give the government open reign on information if it's not explicitly forbidden them? Or worse, the final part of this section states:
In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--
`(D) shall be exempt from disclosure under a State, local, or tribal law or regulation that requires public disclosure of information by a public or quasi-public entity.
If a business chooses to share personal information about customers, there is no way for customers to find out or be aware it is happening. I'm sure there are good reasons to put an exemption like this in the bill, but the lack of explicit protection to the individual customers and citizens is glaring.
As for the limits on what can be done with the information:
Sec 2(c):
`(2) AFFIRMATIVE SEARCH RESTRICTION- The Federal Government may not affirmatively search cyber threat information shared with the Federal Government under subsection (b) for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in paragraph (1)(B).
I'm not familiar with the legal-speak here; what is meant by "affirmatively" searching?
There are some good things I found too. The remainder of Sec 2 is a good start, but it's hard to know if it is sufficient protection for individual rights and privacy or not. Overall, I'm really not sure how I feel about this bill. I don't see anything obvious that tells me its a bad idea, but I don't fully understand all of the nuances of what could happen with it. It seems any government that wants to exploit its citizens will do so, regardless of the legal code, so I'm not sure how this bill would make that kind of abuse any more likely.
I'm not seeing how that works... on the site, they say the random words come from a list or 7,776 words. Any attacker will have access to that list.. if you do a 5 word password, that's a total of 7776**5 possible passwords, which is fewer than a 10 character password using lower & upper case, numbers, and punctuation. That's not more secure, and I'm not sure 5 randomly chosen words is always going to be any easier to remember.
Can anyone recommend a good place (website / book) to learn more?
Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Best photography book I ever invested in.
Scott Kelby has a number of books that I've found very helpful on the specifics, too.
One advantage is that the raw supplies are inherently able to withstand the flight up there, so no investment has to be made into over-engineering the parts to survive being shaken to pieces by a rocket.
The question I had is how the polymers they're using behave in vacuum; they'll almost certainly outgas like crazy. How strong/durable do the parts remain after a given amount of time in space? What about UV light? I'd love to see them do some materials testing before sending an expensive printer up only to find out the parts don't last long enough to be useful.
This assumes that we have no control over where the heat goes. If, on the other hand, we can direct the heat into something else, then the ambient temperature won't get nearly so high. That is, after all, why you have a heat sink on your CPU.
Still, I agree with being a bit skeptical. I think I read somewhere that he claims to use one of these as a glorified space heater. I'd bet a room full of these would get pretty warm in that case... I'd be interested to know where all that energy is going.
You'd also need fuel for course correction. Gas jets do great for orbital maneuvering, but won't help you stick a landing on a relatively small target like a launchpad.
Technically magnets work on particle accelerators because the atoms are ionized. Aside from that, your argument has merit.
The cost of a payload is significantly different from the value of a payload. A lot of that cost goes into paying for the engineering involved. If the space pirate runs up and snags a GPS satellite, what do you honestly think they could get on the market for it?
Wow-- this reminds me of a great Laruel and Hardy sketch where Laurel throws half of his nails away because the head is on the wrong side. Oh, I know! They're not accepting the upside down ones because they must have been sent in from Australia!